ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION: REPERFUSION TREATMENT
Open Access
- 1 September 2002
- Vol. 88 (3) , 298-305
- https://doi.org/10.1136/heart.88.3.298
Abstract
The decision over whether to treat acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with a balloon or infusion of fibrinolytics remains controversial. During the past few years profound changes in both treatment modalities1–3, w1, w2 have substantially changed the arguments surrounding this longstanding debate.w3–5 The evidence shows that the alternative use of primary angioplasty or fibrinolysis is rarely an option, either because angioplasty is simply not available or because the patient is not eligible for fibrinolysis. This evidence reflects the difference in “applicability” of each treatment—that is, the proportion of patients in whom only one of the treatments would be suitable versus patients in whom either treatment would be appropriate. As a matter of fact, primary angioplasty is applicable to almost all victims of AMI (82–90% of patients randomised to primary angioplasty actually undergo the procedure), but it is not available to the majority of patients. Conversely, fibrinolysis is a widely available treatment but “applicable” to a variable percentage of patients which does not reach 50%. The large number of patients with AMI to whom fibrinolysis is not administered represents a big challenge for the future, and perhaps the most rational and undisputed argument in favour of the use of primary angioplasty. The best reperfusion treatment is one that achieves the highest rate of early, complete and sustained infarct related artery patency in the largest number of patients, but with the lowest rate of undesirable effects. The results obtained with both treatments, in the way they were applied before the latest breakthroughs in the field, can be represented by a geometrically opposing relation between “applicability” and “efficacy” (fig 1). Figure 1 Nearly all patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) could potentially benefit from reperfusion treatment with fibrinolytics, but less than 50% will actually be treated; only 50–60% of those will achieve a …Keywords
This publication has 21 references indexed in Scilit:
- Reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction with fibrinolytic therapy or combination reduced fibrinolytic therapy and platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition: the GUSTO V randomised trialThe Lancet, 2001
- Coronary Stenting plus Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Blockade Compared with Tissue Plasminogen Activator in Acute Myocardial InfarctionNew England Journal of Medicine, 2000
- A randomized trial comparing primary angioplasty with a strategy of short-acting thrombolysis and immediate planned rescue angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction: the PACT trialJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1999
- Long-Term Benefit of Primary Angioplasty as Compared with Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Myocardial InfarctionNew England Journal of Medicine, 1999
- Early Revascularization in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic ShockNew England Journal of Medicine, 1999
- EditorialThe American Journal of Cardiology, 1998
- Clinical Experience With Primary Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty Compared With Alteplase (Recombinant Tissue-Type Plasminogen Activator) in Patients With Acute Myocardial InfarctionJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1998
- A Clinical Trial Comparing Primary Coronary Angioplasty with Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Acute Myocardial InfarctionNew England Journal of Medicine, 1997
- The Effects of Tissue Plasminogen Activator, Streptokinase, or Both on Coronary-Artery Patency, Ventricular Function, and Survival after Acute Myocardial InfarctionNew England Journal of Medicine, 1993
- An International Randomized Trial Comparing Four Thrombolytic Strategies for Acute Myocardial InfarctionNew England Journal of Medicine, 1993